Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

I think Kate's killer had selected her some time before AND for a specific reason.

And he may very well have been the tough character that Tom Wescott hypothesises. Put another way, he may have done Emily, Emma and Martha. But NOT the kind of serial killer that one imagines.

So if one wants a series . . .

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

But, aren't there at least as many differences in the series you hypothesize as there are in, say, the C5? Therefore, applying your logic, doesn't it follow that if one killer could have committed this alternative series, then equally one killer could have committed the C5?

[lynn cates]

evidence of strangulation

Hello John, Thanks.

You mean my "reasoning"? No, differences mean little. It is only AFTER two killings as similar as Polly and Annie (evidence of strangulation, double throat cuts, skillful incisions with sharp knife) that differences (Kate--no evidence of strangulation, single throat cut, unskillful incisions) become important.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello John, Thanks.

You mean my "reasoning"? No, differences mean little. It is only AFTER two killings as similar as Polly and Annie (evidence of strangulation, double throat cuts, skillful incisions with sharp knife) that differences (Kate--no evidence of strangulation, single throat cut, unskillful incisions) become important.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
I dont know if you have read this before? I did post it some time ago on this issue of the possibility that the victims may have been strangled first based on some of the descriptions of the bodies.

I asked Dr Biggs

Q. The Doctors, in fact, do report that in some cases bruises were found around the victim’s throats and in the case of Annie Chapman her tongue was found to be protruding. Does this point to her being strangled first before her throat was cut?

A. Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would of course be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising around the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation / suffocation.

A swollen tongue and / or face are findings that are non-specific. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

Hope this helps?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[lynn cates]

clear signs

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

At any rate, BOTH Polly and Annie had swollen or lacerated tongues, as well as facial bruising. Those were considered clear signs of being strangled.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

A word to the wise for messieurs Richards & Cates:

"...investigators must look for progressive changes in a killer's method of operation from one murder to the next, instead of only looking for those characteristics that were exactly the same." (Keppel)

When you have consecutive murders within 2 weeks that are virtually identical in almost all categories, it would be foolish to assume change is inevitable. And again with the serial killer blather.....if only 2 women were killed by the alleged Ripper, the 2 I mentioned, and we have a fixed established pattern that is completely absent in the next assumed murder, which means we have a break in a supposed series. A break that demonstrates without question that there were other people also cutting throats that Fall. Ones that might also resort to mutilating post mortem as a way of disguising their activities.

I think more accurately that we have a multiple murderer, and perhaps other single or multiple murders that followed.

If you serial killer theorists only considered what a tiny little basket you place all your hopes of solving the Ripper murders in, you might broaden the search. Just to be pragmatic. In almost 130 years exactly how many serial murderers or serial "streaks" have been identified...compared with the number of murders that occurred on the planet during that same period? You are looking at the smallest, most rare form of murderer to solve these crimes, maybe consider the 99% of these crimes that don't involve serial murderers and youll see how limiting that approach is.

[Harry D]

When you have consecutive murders within 2 weeks that are virtually identical in almost all categories, it would be foolish to assume change is inevitable. And again with the serial killer blather.....if only 2 women were killed by the alleged Ripper, the 2 I mentioned, and we have a fixed established pattern that is completely absent in the next assumed murder, which means we have a break in a supposed series. A break that demonstrates without question that there were other people also cutting throats that Fall. Ones that might also resort to mutilating post mortem as a way of disguising their activities.

I think more accurately that we have a multiple murderer, and perhaps other single or multiple murders that followed.

If you serial killer theorists only considered what a tiny little basket you place all your hopes of solving the Ripper murders in, you might broaden the search. Just to be pragmatic. In almost 130 years exactly how many serial murderers or serial "streaks" have been identified...compared with the number of murders that occurred on the planet during that same period? You are looking at the smallest, most rare form of murderer to solve these crimes, maybe consider the 99% of these crimes that don't involve serial murderers and youll see how limiting that approach is.

Just because the murders were never solved doesn't somehow discredit them as the work of a serial killer. Before the advent of forensic science, short of catching the villain in the act or extracting a confession, it was nigh on impossible to solve a random, motiveless murder, hence why none of the eleven Whitechapel murders were ever solved.

And I'm still waiting to hear why the copycats would need to "disguise their activities" by resorting to mutilation and overkill when there were several other unsolved Whitechapel murders that weren't accredited to a serial killer (Tabram, Mylett, Coles), or in the case of Stride, who was included despite the absence of mutilations. If someone's butchering women in the street, or spending time in a stuffy hovel dissecting another victim, they're driven by a psychosexual perversion, they're not doing it because they're trying to blame it on the Ripper. I'll go as far as Alice McKenzie in this regard, because her throat was stabbed not slashed, and her mutilations were superficial, but anything else is the stuff of fantasy. Try reading back to yourself what you're implying and if you've any sense you'll realise that it's absolute drivel better placed in the fiction section of your local library than on a case discussion forum.

[curious]

What is it that is so very, very wrong with Charles Lechmere?

In all his long, fairly well-documented life, there does not appear to be any hint of violence.

[Fisherman]

In all his long, fairly well-documented life, there does not appear to be any hint of violence.

"Fairly well-documented"? What do we know about Charles Lechmere´s everyday life? What do we know about how he treated people? What do we know about how he was perceived by those in his proximity?
"There does not appear do be any hint of violence"? Does there appear to be any hint of a stern man? Of a nice man? Of a friendly, outgoing man? Of a harsh, rude man?

Is it not true that we do not have a clue about these matters? And if it is true, is it not equally true that we cannot draw any conclusions at all about things relating to them?

The thing is, a man like Ridgway treated his wife like a queen. If you had asked her, you would have come away with a picture of the Green River killer as one of the nicest of men, hard-working, loyal to his employers, a man with a sense of humour, a truly home-made man.
If you had asked Mrs Peter Kürten the same thing, you would have walked away with the same impression.
Eric Armstrongs wife would have vouched for him. Dennis Raders wife would have done the same.

When will it sink in? Robert Ressler of the FBI, arguably the most skilled profiler there has been, said that the typical serialist is a family man in his mid- or late thirties, with a steady employment. In other words, the EXACT thing Lechmere is on record as.

It would be nice if we knew a lot about the more personal and intimate character of Charles Lechmere. We would not have to second guess things it if that was so.

Now, can we please agree that we do not know what Lechmere was about? That we have no idea whether he was a good man or a bad one? And that serialists who give an impression of being good guys, are in fact something else altogether when we look deeper into them - something we cannot do in Charles Lechmeres case?

[Pierre]

"Fairly well-documented"? What do we know about Charles Lechmere´s everyday life? What do we know about how he treated people? What do we know about how he was perceived by those in his proximity?
"There does not appear do be any hint of violence"? Does there appear to be any hint of a stern man? Of a nice man? Of a friendly, outgoing man? Of a harsh, rude man?

Is it not true that we do not have a clue about these matters? And if it is true, is it not equally true that we cannot draw any conclusions at all about things relating to them?

The thing is, a man like Ridgway treated his wife like a queen. If you had asked her, you would have come away with a picture of the Green River killer as one of the nicest of men, hard-working, loyal to his employers, a man with a sense of humour, a truly home-made man.
If you had asked Mrs Peter Kürten the same thing, you would have walked away with the same impression.
Eric Armstrongs wife would have vouched for him. Dennis Raders wife would have done the same.

When will it sink in? Robert Ressler of the FBI, arguably the most skilled profiler there has been, said that the typical serialist is a family man in his mid- or late thirties, with a steady employment. In other words, the EXACT thing Lechmere is on record as.

It would be nice if we knew a lot about the more personal and intimate character of Charles Lechmere. We would not have to second guess things it if that was so.

Now, can we please agree that we do not know what Lechmere was about? That we have no idea whether he was a good man or a bad one? And that serialists who give an impression of being good guys, are in fact something else altogether when we look deeper into them - something we cannot do in Charles Lechmeres case?

Well, at least this is a problem that I do not have.

[Henry Flower]

Well, at least this is a problem that I do not have.

You don't have these problems until you have a suspect, and as far as anyone knows, you dont, Pierre.

But it's clear to most of us, there are plenty of problems you do have.

Happy new year. Looking forward to your solution being revealed. They say comedy is all about timing, Pierre, so choose the big day carefully.

[curious]

"Fairly well-documented"? What do we know about Charles Lechmere´s everyday life? What do we know about how he treated people? What do we know about how he was perceived by those in his proximity?
"There does not appear do be any hint of violence"? Does there appear to be any hint of a stern man? Of a nice man? Of a friendly, outgoing man? Of a harsh, rude man?

Is it not true that we do not have a clue about these matters? And if it is true, is it not equally true that we cannot draw any conclusions at all about things relating to them?

The thing is, a man like Ridgway treated his wife like a queen. If you had asked her, you would have come away with a picture of the Green River killer as one of the nicest of men, hard-working, loyal to his employers, a man with a sense of humour, a truly home-made man.
If you had asked Mrs Peter Kürten the same thing, you would have walked away with the same impression.
Eric Armstrongs wife would have vouched for him. Dennis Raders wife would have done the same.

When will it sink in? Robert Ressler of the FBI, arguably the most skilled profiler there has been, said that the typical serialist is a family man in his mid- or late thirties, with a steady employment. In other words, the EXACT thing Lechmere is on record as.

It would be nice if we knew a lot about the more personal and intimate character of Charles Lechmere. We would not have to second guess things it if that was so.

Now, can we please agree that we do not know what Lechmere was about? That we have no idea whether he was a good man or a bad one? And that serialists who give an impression of being good guys, are in fact something else altogether when we look deeper into them - something we cannot do in Charles Lechmeres case?

Hi, Fisherman,
I really don't care what Lechmere's wife and neighbors thought of him.

It was you and the poster Lechmere who turned up more than 100 documents relating to the life of Charles Allen Lechmere and his family – his birth, parents' divorce, his marriage (just the one), children's births, entrances to school, etc. Much more documentation than is available for many people from the 1850s and on. However, the one thing you did not find was any brush with the authorities. That's not true for your examples.

Ridgway did hold down one job for 30 years, but he was married three times. Judith and Gary Ridgway had been married just 13 years at the time of his arrest as the Green River Killer. He had been under suspicion by the police for all of those years as their home was searched just a couple of years into their relationship, when they were living together but not yet married. In 1982, three years before he met Judith, Ridgway was arrested for prostitution, as he was just a couple of weeks before his arrest in 2001 on DNA evidence.

The police considered Ridgway a suspect for almost 20 years before they had the evidence to arrest him.

From the records, it does not appear that Lechmere was ever on the radar of the authorities – for anything – during their long search for the Ripper.

Kurten, really?

“His mild manners and soft-spoken courteousness placed him above suspicion, and to most people he appeared to be totally harmless” one website said. HOWEVER, by the time of his last arrest he had been sentenced to prison nearly 30 times.

Seriously? There's absolutely no way to compare him to Lechmere who appears to have never been arrested or in any trouble.

Armstrong may appear to be a closer fit.
He was younger and caught more quickly. At the time of his arrest Armstrong was working as a refueler at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Prior to that job he had been a security guard at the DMC Health Care Centers in Novi a suburb north of Detroit and a clerk at Target in Dearborn Heights and he had been a barber in the U.S. Navy. He was in the Navy from 1993-1999. He did receive four promotions and Good Conduct Medals.
So, he does not appear to have the stability of a long term job, nor a long-term marriage as he married in 1998 and was arrested in 2000.
In addition, police were suspicious of him from the first time he interacted with the force. He was placed under surveillance. Hookers in the area where three bodies were found described Armstrong and his Jeep. When interviewed, he broke down and confessed.

It appears that he tried to commit suicide when he was just 5 and rode his bike into traffic. I don't know if there's a record of that or if that's a family member's recollection after his arrest.

In short, Armstrong does seem a nice guy, but he did not have the 20-years-plus marriage and employment that Lechmere did and Armstrong's behavior drew suspicion – unlike Lechmere who never appeared to be anything other than a witness, even after giving sworn testimony at the inquest.

In many ways Rader is a closer match – his long marriage and association with the same church. However, he could not hold a job.
In addition, Rader had stalked two women in the 1980s and one in the mid-1990s. They filed restraining orders against him and one moved away. Plus, there were reported problems when he served as dog catcher.
So, Rader had a record, unlike anything we have found for Lechmere.

You asked what was wrong with Lechmere. I told you. There is NO RECORD of his ever being under suspicion during his exchanges with the authorities nor in trouble with the authorities at any time in his life.

We don't have to know what his personality was, nor whether his wife would have supported him.

In all the records, there is not the first hint of wrong doing or even the suspicion of wrong doing.
That's what's wrong with your determination to smear the good name of Charles Allen Lechmere.

Indeed, when will it sink in?

curious

[GUT]

You don't have these problems until you have a suspect, and as far as anyone knows, you dont, Pierre.

But it's clear to most of us, there are plenty of problems you do have.

Happy new year. Looking forward to your solution being revealed. They say comedy is all about timing, Pierre, so choose the big day carefully.

I think 1 April would be good for the big reveal.

[Fisherman]

Hi, Fisherman,
I really don't care what Lechmere's wife and neighbors thought of him.

It was you and the poster Lechmere who turned up more than 100 documents relating to the life of Charles Allen Lechmere and his family – his birth, parents' divorce, his marriage (just the one), children's births, entrances to school, etc. Much more documentation than is available for many people from the 1850s and on. However, the one thing you did not find was any brush with the authorities. That's not true for your examples.

Ridgway did hold down one job for 30 years, but he was married three times. Judith and Gary Ridgway had been married just 13 years at the time of his arrest as the Green River Killer. He had been under suspicion by the police for all of those years as their home was searched just a couple of years into their relationship, when they were living together but not yet married. In 1982, three years before he met Judith, Ridgway was arrested for prostitution, as he was just a couple of weeks before his arrest in 2001 on DNA evidence.

The police considered Ridgway a suspect for almost 20 years before they had the evidence to arrest him.

From the records, it does not appear that Lechmere was ever on the radar of the authorities – for anything – during their long search for the Ripper.

Kurten, really?

“His mild manners and soft-spoken courteousness placed him above suspicion, and to most people he appeared to be totally harmless” one website said. HOWEVER, by the time of his last arrest he had been sentenced to prison nearly 30 times.

Seriously? There's absolutely no way to compare him to Lechmere who appears to have never been arrested or in any trouble.

Armstrong may appear to be a closer fit.
He was younger and caught more quickly. At the time of his arrest Armstrong was working as a refueler at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Prior to that job he had been a security guard at the DMC Health Care Centers in Novi a suburb north of Detroit and a clerk at Target in Dearborn Heights and he had been a barber in the U.S. Navy. He was in the Navy from 1993-1999. He did receive four promotions and Good Conduct Medals.
So, he does not appear to have the stability of a long term job, nor a long-term marriage as he married in 1998 and was arrested in 2000.
In addition, police were suspicious of him from the first time he interacted with the force. He was placed under surveillance. Hookers in the area where three bodies were found described Armstrong and his Jeep. When interviewed, he broke down and confessed.

It appears that he tried to commit suicide when he was just 5 and rode his bike into traffic. I don't know if there's a record of that or if that's a family member's recollection after his arrest.

In short, Armstrong does seem a nice guy, but he did not have the 20-years-plus marriage and employment that Lechmere did and Armstrong's behavior drew suspicion – unlike Lechmere who never appeared to be anything other than a witness, even after giving sworn testimony at the inquest.

In many ways Rader is a closer match – his long marriage and association with the same church. However, he could not hold a job.
In addition, Rader had stalked two women in the 1980s and one in the mid-1990s. They filed restraining orders against him and one moved away. Plus, there were reported problems when he served as dog catcher.
So, Rader had a record, unlike anything we have found for Lechmere.

You asked what was wrong with Lechmere. I told you. There is NO RECORD of his ever being under suspicion during his exchanges with the authorities nor in trouble with the authorities at any time in his life.

We don't have to know what his personality was, nor whether his wife would have supported him.

In all the records, there is not the first hint of wrong doing or even the suspicion of wrong doing.
That's what's wrong with your determination to smear the good name of Charles Allen Lechmere.

Indeed, when will it sink in?

curious

I was speaking about how these prolific killers were able to con their own spouses, and how they - rotten eggs though they all were - treated their wives very nicely.
And I was speaking about how nobody can tell what kind of person Lechmere was, good or bad. Or, indeed, what kind of person he SEEMED to be!

It would seem both points were totally lost on you - who see your way through to stating that the fact that are no records of him getting into trouble would somehow equal him being a good guy.

Dream on. You have zero possibility to establish anything at all about his mental disposition and his manner of treating his contemporaries. And I mean zero. I know, for I have tried - and drawn the only conclusion that can be drawn: we don´t know.

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree with that - being covered by a membrane, the kidney is not visible from the front.

Visibility wasn't much of a distinguishing variable when working in Mitre Square. Semi-darkness is a great leveller.

[Fisherman]

Visibility wasn't much of a distinguishing variable when working in Mitre Square. Semi-darkness is a great leveller.

He apparently saw/felt the neck well enough to cut it. He apparently saw/felt the uterus well enough to cut it out.
One of the doctors, I don´t remember who, said there was sufficient light. I can´t fault him.
Can you?

It remains a fact that the mebrane covering the kidney makes it hard to detect from the front. I know you champion the smash-and-grab thinking, but when the abdominal wall is smashed, that membrane sees to it that the kidney is not offered up for grabbing. That matters, and it makes me think that he knew what he was after and he could see what he was doing.